This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the

judgment and decree dated September 27, 2022 in O.S. No.

350/2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and

CJM, Mysore rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 1(d) of

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are, defendant is the lessee

of a commercial property pursuant to lease agreement dated

01.07.2013. Plaintiff issued a notice dated 17.01.2020

calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the

vacant possession of the suit property. Defendant did not

- 3 -

comply with the request. Hence, plaintiff has brought the

instant suit for ejectment and damages.

4.

Defendant filed two I.A.s for rejection of plaint. In

the I.A. 3 it is pleaded that suit is barred by law and there

was no cause of action. In the I.A.4 it is pleaded the suit is

not maintainable in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian

Partnership Act, 1932¹. Both I.A.s have been allowed and

plaint has been rejected. Hence, this appeal.

5.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial

Court has farmed following points for consideration:

i)

Whether the Interlocutory Applications titled I.A No.III

filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure

Code and I.A No.IV filed under Section 69(2) of Indian

Partnership Act r/w Order VII Rule 11(d) of Civil

Procedure Code deserves to be allowed or not?

ii)

What order?

6.

Answering point No.1 in affirmative, the Trail

Court has allowed the I.A.s.

1 ‘the Act’ for short

- 4 -

7.

We have heard Shri. G. Bhargav, learned

Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri. Maneesha

Kongovi, learned Advocate for respondent/defendant.

8.

Shri. G. Bhargav, for the plaintiff, praying to allow

the appeal, mainly submitted that:

 Section 69(2) of the Act only bars suits which

arise out of contracts. In the instant suit,

plaintiff is an association of two co-owners and

both

co-owners

are

parties.

Hence

the

prohibition

under

Section

69(2)

of

the

Partnership Act is not applicable to the facts of

the case;

 the co-owners do not carry on any business

activity similar to a partnership firm nor do

they run any association. They jointly own the

suit property and they have granted the lease

to the defendant;

 the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the

applications as the suit instituted against

- 5 -

defendant was by the co-owners and not by

an unregistered partnership firm;

 there is no averment in the plaint stating that

the plaintiff is an unregistered firm. The Trial

Court has erred in holding that plaintiff is an

unregistered firm;

9.

Opposing the appeal, Shri. Maneesha Kongovi, for

the defendant, submitted that the plaintiff is an unregistered

partnership firm. Therefore, the prohibition under Section

69(2) of the Partnership Act is applicable. The Trial Court

has correctly appreciated the facts and law on the point; and

rejected the plaint.

10. In substance the argument of the plaintiff is that

the property in question is owned jointly by two individuals.

No partnership firm is constituted. Therefore the rejection of

plaint at the threshold is bad in law.

11. We

have

carefully

considered

the

rival

contentions and perused the records.

- 6 -

12. Plaintiff is described in the plaint as follows:

“M/S. SNEHA ASSOCIATES

NO.L-36/D, MYSORE TRADE

CENTER BUILDING

BANGALORE NILAGIRI ROAD

OPP. K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND

MYSURU-570 001

REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING CO-OWNERS

1. MR. C.S. CHANDRASHEKAR

S/O LATE C. SIDDHAIAH AND

2. MR. SHIVARAMA HEGDE

S/O MARIYANNA HEGDE”

13. Plaintiff’s contention is that the two persons

mentioned in the cause-title are co-owners. It is their

specific case that no partnership is in existence. The

application for rejection of plaint is filed under Order 7 Rule

11(a) and (d). Plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule

11(a) if the defendant establishes that there was no cause of

action. It can be rejec